logo
Key facts about asteroid that could hit Earth in 2032

Key facts about asteroid that could hit Earth in 2032

Yahoo19-02-2025

An asteroid capable of flattening a mid-sized city could potentially collide with Earth eight years from now, as its orbit around the sun briefly intersects the path of our planet. Named 2024 YR4, the space rock carries with it very slim odds of striking land — either on Earth or, even less likely, the moon — and astronomers recently set the odds of a crash at 3.1%.
International space organizations like NASA are taking the possible threat seriously, however small it might be. Richard Moissl, the head of the European Space Agency's Planetary Defence Office, said their attentiveness shouldn't unduly raise public concern. He shared key facts about the asteroid with CBS News during the below conversation, which has been edited for clarity.
When would the asteroid hit Earth?
This asteroid passes us by every four years. Every time we go four times around the sun, it has almost precisely completed one turn. It has just recently had a flyby in December 2024, which means the next flyby is in December 2028, and we know already that this one is no problem.
The critical one is in 2032, on the 22nd of December, somewhere around the middle of the day in Universal Time. That is when the asteroid is passing, really, through a part of the orbit of the Earth. So, it's really going through the path of Earth, so to speak.
And the question is, whether Earth will be there at this point in time, or whether it will have already passed or is still approaching that point. It's the question, where will it pass by? There's an uncertainty region that spans, right now, the entire Earth-Moon system — which is not to say that we don't know a lot about it. In fact, we know a lot about it.
Now, we're looking at a closing moment in time on the 22nd of December, 2032, and the question is about fractions of a meter per second, which will make all the difference.
There's about a 20-something-minute window in which the Earth can be in the way of this before it's no longer in the path of the asteroid, or the asteroid cannot come in contact with the Earth anymore.
How is the asteroid risk being managed?
Until recently, we did daily measurements with different telescopes. Then, we had to pause a little bit for one or two days because of the full moon, and the object being too close to the full moon, and the moon illuminating the sky too much to see it.
From now on, we will not monitor it daily, but it will be constantly monitored in the best way possible, with ever larger telescopes. And the idea is to measure its path around the sun in ever higher positions, so you will see this uncertainty region shrink, and shrink, and shrink. And we are trying to constrain the uncertainty so much that we can say whether it passes by Earth safely, or whether there is still some chance left in the middle of April.
What happens in April?
We will be so far away from the object that we cannot observe it from Earth anymore. And then, the James Webb Telescope will take measurements. It will actually take one in March, primarily infrared observations that give us more insight about the size of the object, and then one more in May to do additional measurements. The most likely scenario is that, by that time, you will be able to say, look, we can prove it's not going to hit Earth, but there is a chance that we cannot eliminate it completely. And that will be the more interesting bit, because then we have to wait until mid-2028, when we can observe it again. We will not let that time pass by without action.
When was the last time an asteroid had similar odds of hitting Earth?
This is only the second time that impact prediction systems have rated any asteroid with an impact probability of more than 1%. The last time was about 20 years ago, with the asteroid Apophis in 2004, which reached a couple of percent for a brief period in time before the uncertainty region could be constrained.
That shows how unusual 1% is, and that means that we, as experts, have to take this seriously. However, with the current probability estimated at around 3%, it's still around 97% likely that nothing bad will happen at all. So, that needs to be kept in mind all the time. This is something that merits attention, but it's not perceived as an imminent threat. It's just, we need to find out more about it.
Have asteroids this size actually crashed into Earth?
We are aware of a recent example in history where this has happened. It was 1908 in Siberia. There was an event where 2,000 square kilometers of forest had been flattened by a big explosion, high up in the atmosphere. And this is very consistent with a body about 50 meters in diameter, plus or minus 10 meters, entering Earth's atmosphere.
The body itself was, then, likely not a solid piece of rock. It was more like, what we call a pile of smaller pieces of rock. And this burst several kilometers above the surface and had this effect, that 2,000 square kilometers of forest was flattened, that seismic waves went out from this and could be detected far away, that people witnessed this event, also from very far away.
We don't know if anyone was hurt in that accident. Nothing is reported. But the size, the footprint of the destruction is comparable to a major urban area, or a big city on Earth. So, this is basically the scenario that we would expect from this.
Another example not recorded in human history was an object believed to have been about 50 meters in diameter, a massive chunk of iron that formed the Barringer meteor crater in Arizona. It's a 1.2-kilometer crater. If you look at this and think about it, if that were to hit in a city, the city would look very, very different afterward.
The estimated size of this asteroid ranges from about 40 to 90 meters. Wouldn't there also be a big difference between the damage caused by something 40 meters wide versus 90 meters?
Absolutely. I mean, the 40 to 90 meters is a standard estimate, because we cannot know at this point in time what the surface brightness is. Current data indicate it's more toward the 40- or 50-meter size. So, luckily, on the smaller size range, which is why I cited these popular examples for this.
But, indeed, size matters for asteroids. Size matters a lot. If we're talking about the doubling of the radius of an asteroid, that means eight times the mass, eight times the energy, and that is a significant difference, of course. While on the lower end of the scale, with about 40 meters, it would be threatening to, let's say, a middle-sized city, on the 90-meter edge, it might be comparable to the biggest urban areas.
Why has the probability of 2024 YR4 hitting Earth increased since it was first discovered?
The good news is, this increase does not mean that the asteroid has become more dangerous. The path of the asteroid is defined by physical laws. It's already clear. It's just our knowledge of where that path would be, in reality, is not perfect yet.
The percentage can be compared to the size of the uncertainty area, compared with the size of the Earth. If you look at the fraction, the size of the Earth — which is inside the uncertainty area — is compared to the entire area of the uncertainty of where the asteroid could be in that critical moment in time. This equated to about 1% when we reached this threshold for international awareness.
Since then, the size of the uncertainty region has basically shrunk by half. And the size of Earth, luckily, remains the same. So, that means Earth is now occupying twice the amount of space in the uncertainty region. And it means our estimate for the impact risk has risen from 1% to 3%. It doesn't mean that anything has changed.
Again, 3% is a 97% chance of missing. So what will happen is, with our gaining knowledge, uncertainty will shrink further and further and further, and the expected case is that we will manage to shrink it so much that Earth is no longer inside this uncertainty region, and then the impact probability will drop to zero.
In the case of this being a close flyby to Earth, if it's reasonably close, it's entirely possible that the impact probability will continue to rise a little bit on a modest path. This is still no cause for alarm.
The asteroid has been assigned a Level 3 ranking, out of 10, on the Torino Impact Hazard Scale. How uncommon is that?
It's the first time ever that an object is officially classified as a Level 3 on the Torino scale. The only other object that was ever classified with a level higher than 1 was Apophis. Because of its larger size, Apophis has been classified as a 4 on the Torino scale, which is really just indicating that it's a larger object. [Apophis has an estimated diameter of 350 meters, which is much larger than the asteroid 2024 YR4.]
What else should people know?
Well, the most important thing is, don't panic. Always good advice, but it's definitely applicable advice in this situation. I think this gives us a chance to prove that we, as a planet, can still rise above things on Earth that are between people, between countries, between parts of Earth. That if we are facing a completely outside threat, that we can all come together, join forces and face these kinds of threats together.
This one is a manageable challenge. Even if it were to be headed towards Earth, which is by no means certain, 97% it's clear that it will miss us. So, not much to be afraid of, but a good chance to show that we can stand united on this planet.
Trump administration fires thousands of U.S. Forest and National Park Service workers
DOGE "receipts" show approved spending, not evidence of fraud
Millions of Americans under extreme cold warnings

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo

The Hill

time24 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo

When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.

NASA Pulls the Plug on Europa Lander, but Scientists Propose a Plan B
NASA Pulls the Plug on Europa Lander, but Scientists Propose a Plan B

Gizmodo

time34 minutes ago

  • Gizmodo

NASA Pulls the Plug on Europa Lander, but Scientists Propose a Plan B

NASA engineers have spent the past decade developing a rugged, partially autonomous lander designed to explore Europa, one of Jupiter's most intriguing moons. The space agency got cold feet over the project, but engineers are now targeting a new destination for the probe: Enceladus. Europa has long been a prime target in the search for extraterrestrial biology because scientists suspect it harbors a subsurface ocean beneath its icy crust, potentially teeming with microbial life. But the robot—packed with radiation shielding, cutting-edge software, and ice-drilling appendages—won't be going anywhere anytime soon. In a recent paper in Science Robotics, engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) outlined the design and testing of what was once the Europa Lander prototype, a four-legged robotic explorer built to survive the brutal surface conditions of the Jovian moon. The robot was designed to walk—as opposed to roll—analyze terrain, collect samples, and drill into Europa's icy crust—all with minimal guidance from Earth, due to the major communication lag between our planet and the moon 568 million miles (914 million kilometers) away. Designed to operate autonomously for hours at a time, the bot came equipped with stereoscopic cameras, a robotic arm, LED lights, and a suite of specialized materials tough enough to endure harsh radiation and bone-chilling cold. Temperatures on the moon range from about -210 degrees Fahrenheit (-134 degrees Celsius) at its equator to as low as -370 degrees F (-223 degrees C) at its poles. After years of development—including testing in JPL's labs, advanced simulations, and a final field trial on icy terrain in Alaska—the Europa Lander aced its tests. It was ready to take on the solar system's frosty frontier. But the space agency has now pulled the plug on the mission. According to the team, the challenges of getting to Europa—its radiation exposure, immense distance, and short observation windows—proved too daunting for NASA's higher-ups. And that's before you take into consideration the devastating budget cuts planned by the Trump administration, which would see the agency's funding fall from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. The lander, once the centerpiece of a bold astrobiology initiative, is now essentially mothballed. But the engineers aren't giving up. They're now lobbying for the robot to get a second shot—on Enceladus, Saturn's ice-covered moon, which also boasts a subsurface ocean and has proven more favorable for robotic exploration. Enceladus is still frigid, but has lower radiation and better access windows than Europa. Whether the ice-walker gets a new lease on its semi-autonomous life remains to be seen. But the robot was built for a moonwalk—albeit a relatively rigid and clanky one—and it deserves its moment.

Scientists Say There's Over a Trillion Dollars of Platinum Waiting to Be Extracted From the Moon's Craters
Scientists Say There's Over a Trillion Dollars of Platinum Waiting to Be Extracted From the Moon's Craters

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Scientists Say There's Over a Trillion Dollars of Platinum Waiting to Be Extracted From the Moon's Craters

Researchers say there could be over $1 trillion worth of platinum lurking under the surface of the Moon — a major lunar bounty waiting to be mined. As detailed in a paper published in the journal Planetary and Space Science, independent researcher Jayanth Chennamangalam and his team determined that out of around 1.3 million craters lining the Moon's surface with diameters greater than 0.6 miles across, almost 6,500 were created by asteroids that contain commercial quantities of platinum, among other valuable ores like palladium or iridium. To the researchers, the draw isn't just the promise of immense wealth; the proceeds of mining these ores could be used to explore space. "Today, astronomy is done to satiate our curiosity," Chennamangalam told New Scientist, a surprisingly cynical statement that's bound to raise eyebrows among researchers. "It has very few practical applications and is mostly paid for by taxpayer money, meaning that research funding is at the mercy of governmental policy." "If we can monetise space resources — be it on the Moon or on asteroids — private enterprises will invest in the exploration of the solar system," he added. Chennamangalam, who holds a PhD in astrophysics and was a postdoc at the University of Oxford, found that there could be a "lot more craters on the moon with ore-bearing asteroidal remnants than there are accessible ore-bearing asteroids." Mining these craters would be significantly simpler than traveling to distant asteroids, which most of the time don't have enough gravity for mining operations. But whether plundering the Moon for profit would even be legal remains a far murkier question. As New Scientist points out, the Outer Space Treaty, which was signed in 1967, sets strict rules for space resource mining, stopping any nation from claiming or occupying the "Moon and other celestial bodies." However, experts say those rules could still allow for governments to find loopholes and still claim licensing rights to extract resources. In an effort to ratify international rules, the US established the Artemis Accords, a non-binding framework. However, neither China nor Russia has signed it, leaving its authority murky. In short, the race to the surface of the Moon is on — a tight competition that could be decided between the US and China by the end of this decade, especially if a fortune in precious metals is at play. More on the Moon: Elon Boasts of Huge Starship Improvements Immediately Before It Blows Up Spectacularly

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store